Aoi_Verde
Forgive my ignorance but why repeal the 17th Amendment? I think the People electing politicians is better than other politicians electing politicians. For one thing, repealing the 17th Amendment would mean that the Senate would be influenced by state congressional district gerrymandering.
Isn't government convoluted enough?
It is said that on his return from France, Jefferson called Washington to account at the breakfast-table for having agreed to a second chamber. 'Why,' asked Washington, 'did you pour that coffee into your saucer?' 'To cool it,' quoth Jefferson. 'Even so,' said Washington, 'we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'"
The Senate has been uniformly poorer and poorer at their job since the 17th passed. The fact that spending has skyrocketed along with taxes, pet programs that do nothing, and the filibustering of anything, especially appointees, shows to me that the honor and character of the Senate in its current state is up for debate.
If you ask me, the problem is the 17th amendment, which I feel has lowered the quality of the Senate as a whole. It was meant to be filled with statesmen accountable to those who understand the situations being elected officials themselves, rather than politicians beholden to a reactionary, self-serving and often uninformed public. In fact, my favorite Senator, Zell Miller, was not elected, but rather appointed on his merits. Accordingly, he has acted on his conscience rather than on what will or won't win him voters (since he was planning on retiring, and did not run for election afterwards). That tells me quite a bit about the role the Senate was meant to play, rather than being just another House of Representatives with a different structure.
Reply
